So
anathema is Republican President George Bush to many Americans that an
Anybody-But-Bush (ABB) movement arose to replace him. The ABB movement has
coalesced behind the candidate it identifies as the only “viable” option to
Bush. To the extent that removing Bush is the one-and-only priority the ABB
strategy is rational. If there are other priorities of importance then the
logic behind the ABB movement is questionable.

The ABB movement includes Democrats,
disillusioned Republicans, and progressives. The ABB support for the
“viable” candidature of Democratic frontrunner John Kerry presents a
conundrum for progressives. Kerry is not a progressive and eschews any such
or similar labeling.

In fact, Kerry’s platform is so pathetic that
he is commonly referred to by a lesser variant of his opponent’s name: Bush-lite.
How galling it must be to be referred to as a lighter version of a much
scorned war president. Bush’s Machiavellian political strategist Karl Rove
has set out his tactics. Bush taunts Kerry as not being tough enough. A
deserter derides the toughness of a decorated veteran. It seems ludicrous.
But by continuing to define himself according to the standards dictated by
Bush, Kerry finds himself ensnared in the Bush-Rove web.

Kerry has rather unseemly tried to portray
himself as Bush-extra. Kerry would out-Bush Bush on the occupation of Iraq
and his unwavering support for Israel -- atrocities against Iraqis and
Palestinians be damned. This hardly seems like a strategy that would endear
itself to the progressives in the ABB crowd.

It would seem more reasonable, at this
juncture, for progressives in the Democratic camp to tout Dennis Kucinich
who remains in the party’s leadership race. Kucinich is running an openly
progressive, anti-war platform. So why aren’t the progressives pressuring
Kerry? Or, are the progressives so few in the Democratic camp?

Perhaps many have jumped ship already and
headed over to the Independent presidential bid of Ralph Nader.

This has raised the ire of many Democrats who
expect progressive support; never mind that progressive policies are
unsupported in the power corridors of the Democratic Party. But so deep is
the ABB desire that some self-professed progressives line up behind Kerry.
These progressives likewise are ensnared in a web of self-deception.

A Wayback Analogy

Imagine Nader taking a trip with Sherman and
Professor Peabody in the Wayback Machine. They enter into a fictional
electoral race between Adolf Hitler, who has plunged his country into war
with European neighbors, and Benito Mussolini. Nader decides that he will be
the third option. Let’s ignore the fact that the three contenders are
different nationalities (remember Hitler is Austrian and not German).
Mussolini is disparaged as Hitler-lite but he is seen as more viable than
Ralph Nader. Many people are loath to see a continuance of war under Hitler
and there is a strong Anybody-But-Hitler undercurrent. Mussolini mouths
pretty much the same platform as Hitler but there may be small differences;
that could mean big outcomes for hopeful progressives.

Mussolini was of similar fascist cloth to
Hitler. It seems absurd to choose between two such figures when a third
alternative is available. Bush and Kerry are likewise cut from the same
privileged corporate-imperial cloth. Why should one anticipate favorable big
outcomes from Kerry? He is claiming that he will outdo Bush militarily.

The Notion of Electoral Viability

Who determines viability anyway? In a properly
functioning democracy clearly the electorate determines this. After the vote
is counted, viability is determined -- usually. Viability, however, only
really matters insofar as winning. In 2000, the Democratic presidential
candidate Al Gore’s vote-winning success was not parlayed into victory but
rather Supreme defeat. The voters did not solely determine viability. The
2000 election was a freak -- an abuse of democracy -- where viability norms
were thrown out the window and Gore’s voter victory was for naught.

Whose ends do pre-election determinations of
viability serve? Corporate media pronouncements on a candidate’s viability
tend to reinforce the status quo of the political duopoly.

Nader’s in-vain run for the presidency in 2000
is often blamed for the selection of Bush. Such assertions are not
scientifically valid. An election is not a controlled experiment and
therefore no definitive causation can be attributed to the electoral
results. Nader is responsible for running and that is basically all. Nader
is not responsible for how the electorate voted; he is not responsible for
Bush’s policies; he is not responsible for Gore’s rejection of a more
progressive platform. When not coerced, people are responsible for their own
actions.

When Democrats had their turn at the helm
under President Bill Clinton the small differences separating them from the
Republicans turned out to have small outcomes. More Iraqis died during the
Clinton years than have so far under either of the Bush administrations.

A number of progressives refuse to buy into
the lesser-evil paradox confronting progressives. Polling numbers are
indicating that Nader has significant support. ABB supporters are aghast and
fearful that Kerry’s victory is imperiled by Naderite support. Kerry’s team
has, in a Rovian move, resorted to running anti-Nader TV and internet ads.
Such a campaign seems destined to failure in attracting back support from
Nader and may trigger a backlash.

Those advocating that Nader drop out of the
race are arguing an anti-democratic position. Attributing Gore’s loss to
Nader’s presence in the 2000 presidential race is also futile. While there
were Republican voices bemoaning the Ross Perot candidacy in previous years,
it was nothing quite like the Democrats full frontal on Nader.

Gore, to his detriment, turned away from the
progressives and instead hooked up with a hawkish vice presidential
running-mate. If Gore had brought Nader into the Democratic fold then maybe
there would have been some big outcome. The outcome instead turned out to be
the selection of Bush.

It appears as if Kerry has not learned any
lessons from this. Right-wing Republican military names like Vietnam vet
John McCain and retired
Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni have been
bandied about as potential running-mates for Kerry. Kerry would be
alienating progressives again. Arguing against Nader being in the race
effectively means removing the only voice for progressive values and
peaceful resolutions to the zones of American occupation. Why should
progressives agree to the removal of the progressive option from the table?

To close the door to a progressive candidature
is to leave the field open to manipulation by the corporate duopoly. The
Democrats' message to progressives is coming in loud and clear for sensible
minds: We want your votes but we don’t want your ideals.

Kim Petersen
is a writer living in Nova Scotia, Canada. He can be reached at: kimpete@start.no.